Who knows?

An interesting divergence of opinion on the current situation regarding the EU budget is evident when comparing these two articles:

As he holds the European flag aloft, the PM can thank his lucky stars. (The Times, UK)

European leaders intensify criticism of Blair's priorities. (New York Times, USA)

In The Times comment piece by Anatole Kaletsky, Blair is painted as the man to whom European leaders are turning. With the Franco-German leadership of the EU weakened by the referendum defeat in France and Chancellor Schroeder's likely departure in the Autumn, a new direction is needed for Europe. And that direction, according to Anatole Kaletsky, is likely to come from Blair.

"The obvious candidate to fill this leadership vacuum is Britain under Tony Blair. Mr Blair'’s Third Way rhetoric may seem half-baked and self-contradictory in the context of British or American politics, but trying to find a compromise between capitalism and social democracy is what mainstream politics in every European country is about. Moreover, Mr Blair, while he may be no great economic or political theorist, has a track record unique among the major European leaders, of running a Third Way model with a modicum of success. "

In this picture it is Chirac who is increasingly isolated:

"In fact, it now looks like France, rather than Britain, will become the odd man out in Europe, with President Chirac's isolation only underlined by the insignificance of the only two allies he can still depend on Belgium and Luxembourg."

However, a vastly different image is painted by the New York Times piece. Blair is described as having "become increasingly isolated since the [summit] meeting" last week. This is backed up by reference to a speech of the President of the EU Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso:

"He ... rejected Mr. Blair's call for an immediate rethinking of how the European Union spends its money, including reductions in farm subsidies, which largely benefit France, as a condition for striking a deal on a new financial package for 2007-13. Instead, he urged an immediate agreement before any debate to avoid "paralysis" in the union.

"He said Britain should respect a deal struck in 2002 by all European Union leaders, including Mr. Blair, which fixes farm spending until 2012."

This conflicts with the BBC's report on this very same speech which states that:

"Mr Barroso also told the European Parliament that EU leaders needed to look at the priorities and structure of the disputed long-term budget.

His comments will be interpreted as support for Britain's view that there should be a fundamental review, says BBC European affairs analyst William Horsley."

I've not found a copy of Mr Barroso's speech so I can't yet be sure of what he said. But leaving that aside, the NYT is, I believe, wrong to suggest that Blair is isolated. In fact, it seems to stem from a limited understanding of the current situation. Not only was Blair explicitly backed by a number of European leaders (those of Sweden, Holland, Spain etc), but he has also received the support of Angela Merkel, Schroeder's likely replacement in Germany. The NYT refers to Merkel's support, but seems to have not thought through its consequences.

Furthermore, it is not just the British media who sees Blair as having been strengthened by the budget debacle. This article in Le Monde speaks of Chirac having been "weakened", with the British PM being described (in my dodgy translation) as "the new strong man of Europe".

It seems to me then, that the UK, and Blair in particular, is not being left out in the cold, and that Anatole Katelsky's vision is the more accurate.

An earlier post by me on this subject here.

Another article in The Times suggesting that the UK is not alone in wishing to get rid of EU subsidies: Media in Germany warmed by Blair's plea to the people. The article also backs up the BBC's interpretation of Barroso's speech.

Thanks to those who have left comments. They're greatly appreciated as they let me know people are actually reading the blog!